Parking Eye Appeal Question

nrd320

I parked on a motorway service station that offered 2hrs free then you paid for the following hours. 1hr 45 before the free time expired i went inside and purchased extra hours (from the whsmith shop) I left the site about 15 mins before I thought the ticket ran out. Letter in the post after to say I over stayed, I scanned the ticket in and sent it parking eye, they rejected my claim as it appears I did not purchase enough hours. The ticket does not say the number of hours I purchased, I told the sales person the time I would leave and that I was already there 2 hours but looks like they sold me insufficient hours. Where do I stand ?

Ralph-y

Hi and welcome to the forum .....

please read through the first few sections of the newbie thread to get a better understanding of the scam you have fallen into ....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

after reading send off the first appeal ........

at the same time speak to the services manager and get him to cancel this .........

Good luck

Ralph:cool:

Fruitcake

nrd320 wrote: »

I parked on a motorway service station that offered 2hrs free then you paid for the following hours. 1hr 45 before the free time expired i went inside and purchased extra hours (from the whsmith shop) I left the site about 15 mins before I thought the ticket ran out. Letter in the post after to say I over stayed, I scanned the ticket in and sent it parking eye, they rejected my claim as it appears I did not purchase enough hours. The ticket does not say the number of hours I purchased, I told the sales person the time I would leave and that I was already there 2 hours but looks like they sold me insufficient hours. Where do I stand ?

You should start by reading the Sticky thread for NEWBIES. Unfortunately you may have given away the fact that you were driving.


Parking lie should have given you a PoPLA code so you need to read the POPLA appeals decision thread and find one that is closest to your situation then modify it to suit your case, post it up here for review by the experts then appeal tp PoPLA withing the requisite appeal deadline. If you did reveal who was driving then you won't be able to use an invalid NTK that doesn't meet the requirements of POFA 2012.


Also contact the landowner/Motorway Service Station saying that you paid for extra time and ask them to cancel the ticket.

Fruitcake

Ralph-y wrote: »

Hi and welcome to the forum .....

please read through the first few sections of the newbie thread to get a better understanding of the scam you have fallen into ....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

after reading send off the first appeal ........

at the same time speak to the services manager and get him to cancel this .........

Good luck

Ralph:cool:

The OP sent parking lie a copy of the paid for ticket, so effectively they appealed as driver and are now at PoPLA stage.

Ralph-y

Oops ..... time for a trip to specsaver's

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

nrd320 wrote: »

I parked on a motorway service station that offered 2hrs free then you paid for the following hours. 1hr 45 before the free time expired i went inside and purchased extra hours (from the whsmith shop) I left the site about 15 mins before I thought the ticket ran out.

Letter in the post after to say I over stayed, I scanned the ticket in and sent it parking eye, they rejected my claim as it appears I did not purchase enough hours. The ticket does not say the number of hours I purchased, I told the sales person the time I would leave and that I was already there 2 hours but looks like they sold me insufficient hours. Where do I stand ?

Stand where you like but don't ignore this stage (because PE sue ignorers in some cases) and don't miss your 28 day deadline. Please show us your draft POPLA appeal which can be based on cribbing from the similar example POPLA appeal about a ParkingEye P&D car park where a few minutes extra time was alleged at Newquay beach. Any idea how many minutes are alleged at stake?

The examples are in post #4 of the NEWBIES thread, near the top of the forum.

salmosalaris

In paid parking situations I'm using the below as an alternative to the old gpeol argument .( as this is a court defence you could replace defendant with appellant and claimant with operator )
POPLA have adjourned appeals to consider the SC judgment in Beavis , I wonder why ?? !!


The Claimant has no legitimate interest in enforcing their charge , the charge is disproportionate , a penalty and an unenforceable Unfair contract term and this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis

The contract entered into by motorists is a simple consumer financial contract. An offer of parking is made in return for payment of a small tariff. The Claimant is seeking to impose a charge for breach of contract. The loss for failure to make this payment is easily calculable as that unpaid tariff. Anything in excess is clearly a penalty and Unfair contract term .

a. The Claimant may seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case. The defendant will make the following observations. The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in Parking Eye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty , despite the fact Parking Eye made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. The legitimate interest was described in the Supreme Court judgment as :

“97
a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants’ prospective customers; -

b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;- i

c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential number of such customers; - i

d. The related need to prevent ‘misuse’ of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants’ business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to off-park premises; and
I
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves.”-

In this case the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park as it did had payment been made ( although it is denied adequate payment was not made )The above justifications are irrelevant and conspicuously absent. The only interest the Claimant has in enforcing the charge is ensuring payment is made. That is not a legitimate interest. The car park is no different to any commercial enterprise .The Claimant cannot argue that a legitimate interest is simply ensuring that payment is made , i.e. simply ensuring the terms of the contract are not breached. If that was the situation any contractual term requiring payment for breach could never automatically be a penalty, in other words the need for anither legitimate interest is unnecessary. In addition the charge demanded for breach is clearly disproportionate to the unpaid parking tariff of a few pounds. The charge is clearly a penalty following the judgment of the Supreme Court.

This position is reinforced in the earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal in Parking Eye v Beavis . The judgment states :

"43. It is clear that the purpose of the £85 parking charge is to deter those who use the car
park from overstaying beyond the free permitted two hours. So, Mr Hossain
submitted, the case is clear and the parking charge provision is unenforceable.
44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least
an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be
assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract by one party
or the other. Sometimes such measurement is difficult because of inherent
uncertainties, and in those an agreed liquidated damages provision may be upheld for
those reasons. But, however difficult it may be to measure, it is clear that there are
economic and commercial effects on the parties.
45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction
between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays
no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to
use the land. The operator affords the driver a free facility. That facility is, of course,
of economic value to the driver, as well as of convenience, in assisting the driver to
visit the shops in the shopping centre which the car park serves. It is thus useful to
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. ParkingEye -v- Beavis
the driver, being close to the shops, and free. It is also useful to the shopkeepers, in
encouraging visitors, and in particular in encouraging a turnover of visitors because of
the two hour limit. A car owner cannot simply come to the car park and park there all
day. To do that would be to clog up the facility and to prevent those arriving later
from using the park for its intended purpose.
46. The terms of use of the car park need, therefore, to provide a disincentive to drivers
which will make them tend to comply with the two hour limit. That is afforded by the
parking charge of £85. It would not be afforded by a system of imposing a rate per
hour according to the time overstayed, unless that rate were also substantial, and well
above what might be regarded as a market rate for the elapsed time, even if the market
rate were in some way adjusted to take account of the benefit to the driver of the first
two hours being free.
47. It seems to me that the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to
strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned
with, merely on the basis that the contractual provision is a disincentive, or deterrent,
against overstaying. When the court is considering an ordinary financial or
commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own
rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should
prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that
which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.
The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)
6 Bing. 141 at 148:
“But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence
of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be
considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being
precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which
courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to
assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”



This judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would also consider the charge in this case a clear penalty. The purported contract with the motorist is a clear consumer financial contract where the loss is easily calculable unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis. There is clear financial interaction between the Claimant and motorist .There is no commercially or socially justifiable deterrent value in the charge as the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park in return for payment of a small parking tariff ( had the requirement to do so clearly been advertised) and the contractual term is clearly the attempt to impose payment of a large sum in consequence of the non payment of a very small sum. Any real loss can only be the small parking tariff and it is only that to which the landowner , not the Claimant, may be entitled. The demanded charge is , without intellectual dishonesty, a clearly unenforceable penalty .

b. With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 part 1 para 6 ( or UTCCR 1999 SCHEDULE 2 REGULATION5(5) 1 (e)) the charge is clearly an unenforceable contract term as the Claimant is seeking to impose a charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to the parking tariff of only a few pounds that the Claimant believes should have been paid.

salmosalaris

Fruitcake wrote: »

The OP sent parking lie a copy of the paid for ticket, so effectively they appealed as driver and are now at PoPLA stage.

Not necessarily
Depends how any communication was written

So any POPLA appeal should cover POFA compliance , the worst case is POPLA will reject it .
Appeal also needs to
a.demand proof of authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue them to court in their own name .
b. No contract with operator , the signage clearly identifies a Principal who offers the parking contract .AS agent of a disclosed Principal the operator has no authority to enforce a contract in their own name. Have you still got the parking receipt ? What is VAT no on it ?
c. No breach of contract , ANPR recordings record the vehicle at arbitrary points entering and leaving the site of which the driver is unaware. They bear no resemblance to the time the vehicle was parked which was within the purchased allowance and additionally any such contract term relying "hiddden" timings is clearly unfair and unenforceable .
d. Demand proof that ANPR camera timings and parking receipt timings are calibrated

nrd320

Thanks for the information everyone. I only just had the letter back so will appeal to POPLA. In my eyes I done nothing wrong, I went and purchased extra hours and left before they were up, or so i thought. It appears I was sold the wrong amount of hours, a guess says they did not factor in that I had been there almost the 2 free hours already, even though I said this when I purchased the additional hours. The receipt does not say how many hours etc I purchased it just says £5 parking and thats all, so I had no way of knowing they had sold me the wrong hours, until I got the letter.

yotmon

nrd320 wrote: »

In my eyes I done nothing wrong, I went and purchased extra hours and left before they were up, or so i thought. It appears I was sold the wrong amount of hours, a guess says they did not factor in that I had been there almost the 2 free hours already, even though I said this when I purchased the additional hours. The receipt does not say how many hours etc I purchased it just says £5 parking and thats all, so I had no way of knowing they had sold me the wrong hours, until I got the letter.

If the service station is close by, then it may be beneficial to call back and take photos of the signs governing parking, it would save any guesswork/supposition. If not, then look on 'google earth' street view, to see if their cameras cover the area concerned.

nrd320

Part of my letter will say this. From the on set it appears I was sold the wrong amount of hours.

As per the letter I arrived at apx 23:24pm and left at 07:01am. This means that my initial 2 hours free parking would expire at 1:24am. I went into the service station and asked where the machine was to pay for additional parking I was advised it is done in the shop. I went into the shop and said I needed to purchase extra parking, I was asked what time I would leave, I said its 1.15am now so 7.15am. I also mentioned that I had already been parked for 2 almost hours. The parking was sold to me at apx 1:15am (as per attached receipt) no further questions were asked by the person selling me the extra time.
I left the site according to ParkingEye records at 07:01am so in my eyes that was apx 14 mins before I actually needed to leave.

As you can see from the attached receipt it just says I paid £5 for “1 PRK CAR” which I assume just means car parking. It does not say what time I must leave or what time I arrived or how many hours I have purchased. Obviously if the receipt had this information on it then it would have been something that I could go back into the shop and raise as been incorrect. But at the time I was not aware I had been sold the wrong amount of hours.
The letter I received back from ParkingEye to my initial appeal just states that “insufficient time was paid for” but does not state what time this is they are referring to ? So I have no idea how many hours I was miss-sold by the shop in question. There is also no reference to how much I should have paid per hour additional either.